Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be clear, we support the right of all pilots to openly discuss any subject they choose...
The last thing ACPA wants on this issue is an open discussion, and they have gone to great lengths to prevent it.
This week the MEC unanimously approved an agreement reached between the ACPA Age 60 Legal Support Committee and Air Canada that establishes the return to work conditions for Mr. George Vilven and Mr. Neil Kelly.
Under the terms of our Pension Plan they are entitled to receive their pension payments and will receive a salary top-up not to exceed that of a B777 First Officer.
Who's paying the top up? ACPA members?
There are so many questions it's hard to know where to start.
Last edited by engfireleft; 23rd Jul 2010 at 21:50.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... They are reinstated and will have seniority rights, unless the union has decided they don't. If that's the case this should get very interesting quickly.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely, there has to be a reason to restrict someone to a particular position. If this is a case of punitive measures to encourage someone to leave then both the union and company are opening themselves to even more grief. There is also the next 150 cases. Are they going to be similarly restricted to EMJ FO, thus boosting 150 guys into the next higher paying position while paying the reinstated pilots B777 wages? Who's footing the bill for that? I think it would be naive to think the company is going to accept all the cost.
So many questions...
So many questions...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilven and Kelly should be given their old numbers back ... i.e they should be placed on the list just ahead of the guy they were just ahead of when they left and just behind the guy they were just behind when they left. I assume that would put them very near the top of the seniority list ... maybe position one and two. The Company can decide what equip that they are initially trained on and for how long. Eventually their seniority should rule. This philosophy should apply to all reinstated Pilots during this "change over" of philosophy period.
Just did some web searching as I feel there as there might be another reason for RAY767's interest in this item and that is federal politics. It seems he is running for a M.P. in the next federal election so the cynic could say his involvement in this fight is for a seat in the "front bench" of parliament.
Before that will ever happen he has to be elected, but Justice or Human Rights would be a interest or if he loses back to the "friendly skies"??????????
The item below was taken from his political web site which is also a article from the Winnipeg Free Press.
11/21/2009
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has decided in favour of two Air Canada pilots who complained their forced retirement at the age of 60 was discrimination.
"It's a pretty significant decision," said Raymond Hall, a now-retired Air Canada pilot in Winnipeg and lawyer who helped pilots George Vilven and Robert Neil Kelly in court.
Vilven and Kelly were both forced to retire from Air Canada at the age of 60, and took their cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the body that reviews cases of alleged discrimination when employees fall under federal jurisdiction. Both were referred to the tribunal.
The tribunal initially rejected their complaints based on an exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act letting employers defend mandatory retirement if the age is the industry norm, said Hall, and also rejected the argument that it was a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A federal court disagreed, he said, and found mandatory retirement was a charter breach. The case was sent back to the tribunal to see if the breach was reasonably justified. The tribunal found otherwise, and decided Air Canada could not justify the policy.
"It gives a clear message to employers that mandatory retirement has to be properly justified," said Hall.
Airline pilots are given frequent competency and medical tests to ensure they're capable of flying, he said.
In a press release, the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) expressed disappointment with the decision.
A spokesperson for Air Canada said the company was studying the decision and could not comment until their review was complete.
The decision has implications not just for aviation, but for all employees and employers under federal jurisdiction, including those involved in transportation, banking, and telecommunications, said Hall.
Both Air Canada and the pilots' union can seek a review of the decision within 30 days.
The issue of damages will be decided at a future hearing.
Hall, who also represented a coalition of pilots forced to retire called Fly Past 60, said he's unclear whether he would return to the skies with Air Canada if the company changed its mandatory retirement rule.
He's set to run federally for the Conservatives in Winnipeg South Centre against Liberal MP Anita Neville in the event an election is called.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 29, 2009 B1
Before that will ever happen he has to be elected, but Justice or Human Rights would be a interest or if he loses back to the "friendly skies"??????????
The item below was taken from his political web site which is also a article from the Winnipeg Free Press.
Raymond getting results for pilots!
11/21/2009
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has decided in favour of two Air Canada pilots who complained their forced retirement at the age of 60 was discrimination.
"It's a pretty significant decision," said Raymond Hall, a now-retired Air Canada pilot in Winnipeg and lawyer who helped pilots George Vilven and Robert Neil Kelly in court.
Vilven and Kelly were both forced to retire from Air Canada at the age of 60, and took their cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the body that reviews cases of alleged discrimination when employees fall under federal jurisdiction. Both were referred to the tribunal.
The tribunal initially rejected their complaints based on an exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act letting employers defend mandatory retirement if the age is the industry norm, said Hall, and also rejected the argument that it was a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A federal court disagreed, he said, and found mandatory retirement was a charter breach. The case was sent back to the tribunal to see if the breach was reasonably justified. The tribunal found otherwise, and decided Air Canada could not justify the policy.
"It gives a clear message to employers that mandatory retirement has to be properly justified," said Hall.
Airline pilots are given frequent competency and medical tests to ensure they're capable of flying, he said.
In a press release, the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) expressed disappointment with the decision.
A spokesperson for Air Canada said the company was studying the decision and could not comment until their review was complete.
The decision has implications not just for aviation, but for all employees and employers under federal jurisdiction, including those involved in transportation, banking, and telecommunications, said Hall.
Both Air Canada and the pilots' union can seek a review of the decision within 30 days.
The issue of damages will be decided at a future hearing.
Hall, who also represented a coalition of pilots forced to retire called Fly Past 60, said he's unclear whether he would return to the skies with Air Canada if the company changed its mandatory retirement rule.
He's set to run federally for the Conservatives in Winnipeg South Centre against Liberal MP Anita Neville in the event an election is called.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 29, 2009 B1
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kanada Eh!
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray Hall as a politician will be a loose canon...change that to a loose water gun. If ever elected, he might walk across the chamber to any better offer by the opposition for his spot in the limelight.
Type of guy who supported a system who force those senior to him to retire at 60 but when he approach the agreed to retirement age no no not for me i want to stay, and if you do not agree i will sue.
Do not trust the guy...OMO
Type of guy who supported a system who force those senior to him to retire at 60 but when he approach the agreed to retirement age no no not for me i want to stay, and if you do not agree i will sue.
Do not trust the guy...OMO
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why ACPA and Air Canada are getting steamrolled on this issue. Instead of taking a critical, objective look at what's happening and acting accordingly you persist in attacking the people bringing about this change. Instead of managing this change that was going to happen no matter who caused it, you act like children pointing fingers and calling names. In the meantime you attempt to enact measures at every step of the way intended to further discriminate and punish those standing up for their rights. You just don't learn.
Unfortunately it means ACPA and Air Canada will continue to get hammered over the head by the law until they figure it out. It will cost us lots.
Unfortunately it means ACPA and Air Canada will continue to get hammered over the head by the law until they figure it out. It will cost us lots.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myths and Fantasies
Let's get rid of the myth that Senior Pilots supported Age 60 retirement till their turn came.
Many pilots supported the Ross Stevenson fight; suggesting that CALPA should stick to its policy of opposing mandatory retirement. Ray Hall and others spoke out on this issue long before their retirement, trying to have ACPA use the change in ICAO recommendations as an opportunity for more early retirements as well as eliminating mandatory retirement in line with Canadian law. Many others supported the change quietly, after speaking up attracted censure from short term thinkers.
Senior pilots supported junior pilots in numerous ways over the years. Senior pilots took short hours (at AC) at times to avoid layoffs of junior pilots.
Senior pilots got accomodations and allowances for those on initial training at AC, something those senior pilots did not have when they were hired.
Senior pilots supported the introduction of the Bank Plan at AC. Prior to that, certain blockholders would go on makeup well over a hundred hours, and reserve pilots would get very little flying. Senior pilots also supported the change to higher minimum guarantee for reserves.
There are numerous other examples of Senior Pilots supporting juniors.
Air Canada management has been working to destroy ACPA for years. The new agreement with ACPA to restrict Kelly and Vilven to the Embraer will aggravate the legal battle, as ACPA continues to pour money into a pointless fight, and further divides the membership. There are a lot of current pilots supporting the Fly Past 60 Coalition; those pilots are mostly keeping quiet in public.
AC has made ACPA jointly liable for damages. When ACPA has to impose a special assessment to pay those damages, the membership may finally realise they have been sold a bill of goods.
Air Canada has nothing to gain financially by perpetuating this fight. The financial benefit of even a few pilots staying past 60 is huge. Unless AC management is stupid, they have another reason for stirring the pot.
There are a lot of AC pilots quietly promoting the idea of ALPA instead of ACPA for the next contract. There is dissension within the MEC on several issues, including this one.
After CALPA went down at AC, Flight Ops management appointed former CALPA officers to management positions; watch for a replay when ACPA goes down.
Many pilots supported the Ross Stevenson fight; suggesting that CALPA should stick to its policy of opposing mandatory retirement. Ray Hall and others spoke out on this issue long before their retirement, trying to have ACPA use the change in ICAO recommendations as an opportunity for more early retirements as well as eliminating mandatory retirement in line with Canadian law. Many others supported the change quietly, after speaking up attracted censure from short term thinkers.
Senior pilots supported junior pilots in numerous ways over the years. Senior pilots took short hours (at AC) at times to avoid layoffs of junior pilots.
Senior pilots got accomodations and allowances for those on initial training at AC, something those senior pilots did not have when they were hired.
Senior pilots supported the introduction of the Bank Plan at AC. Prior to that, certain blockholders would go on makeup well over a hundred hours, and reserve pilots would get very little flying. Senior pilots also supported the change to higher minimum guarantee for reserves.
There are numerous other examples of Senior Pilots supporting juniors.
Air Canada management has been working to destroy ACPA for years. The new agreement with ACPA to restrict Kelly and Vilven to the Embraer will aggravate the legal battle, as ACPA continues to pour money into a pointless fight, and further divides the membership. There are a lot of current pilots supporting the Fly Past 60 Coalition; those pilots are mostly keeping quiet in public.
AC has made ACPA jointly liable for damages. When ACPA has to impose a special assessment to pay those damages, the membership may finally realise they have been sold a bill of goods.
Air Canada has nothing to gain financially by perpetuating this fight. The financial benefit of even a few pilots staying past 60 is huge. Unless AC management is stupid, they have another reason for stirring the pot.
There are a lot of AC pilots quietly promoting the idea of ALPA instead of ACPA for the next contract. There is dissension within the MEC on several issues, including this one.
After CALPA went down at AC, Flight Ops management appointed former CALPA officers to management positions; watch for a replay when ACPA goes down.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After CALPA went down at AC, Flight Ops management appointed former CALPA officers to management positions; watch for a replay when ACPA goes down.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantasy
Regarding placing Kelly and Vilven on the Embraer and "uplifting" their pension to 777 F/O rates.
It is unusual for someone to receive a pension and a salary in the same company.
Consider the case of a complainant who is recently retired as a 777 Captain, is still completely current on that aircraft and has never seen the Embraer. Will AC then train that person on the Embraer at a cost of $40,000, then pay them as a 777 Captain. How about 50 such individuals?
AC loses the benefit of reduced training costs that comes with fewer retirements; average seven courses for each retiree at $40,000.
If AC continues to pay pension and salary, AC loses the improvement to the Pension plan that comes from paying out for fewer years, and loses the benefit of pilots paying into the pension for more years.
What if some of those pilots stay for only brief periods; what is the cost then?
How will Flight Ops Management justify this to the the AC Board?
AC has nothing to gain with this; there is more here than meets the eye.
It is unusual for someone to receive a pension and a salary in the same company.
Consider the case of a complainant who is recently retired as a 777 Captain, is still completely current on that aircraft and has never seen the Embraer. Will AC then train that person on the Embraer at a cost of $40,000, then pay them as a 777 Captain. How about 50 such individuals?
AC loses the benefit of reduced training costs that comes with fewer retirements; average seven courses for each retiree at $40,000.
If AC continues to pay pension and salary, AC loses the improvement to the Pension plan that comes from paying out for fewer years, and loses the benefit of pilots paying into the pension for more years.
What if some of those pilots stay for only brief periods; what is the cost then?
How will Flight Ops Management justify this to the the AC Board?
AC has nothing to gain with this; there is more here than meets the eye.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is surprising is that Air Canada's senior management must have bought into this dog's breakfast solution. I smell litigation and liability!
It is the lawyers' dream come true.
It is the lawyers' dream come true.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North America
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote giving every airline pilot over 60 a free ticket into the sun.
They'll enjoy taking turns showing off their skills, and if one of them seriously isn't competent enough to aim at the sun, at least they're not here anymore!
They'll enjoy taking turns showing off their skills, and if one of them seriously isn't competent enough to aim at the sun, at least they're not here anymore!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One step at a time Ray 767, you well know the only case heard by the CHRC is the Villiven/Kelly complaint. That outcome has yet to be clarified by the CHRC Chairman to many of these questions that are being discussed.
This complaint has not yet had a final outcome other that re-instatement and you well know they should not displace a pilot from their position. The Embraer F/O is only position with vancancies. From what I have been told the CHRC Chairman has a good grasp of the issue of re-instatement and the harm to others by displacement. So they will be the highest paid EMB pilots in the Company! Certainly more than any of the Captains.
They are seeking a return to flying, Yes or No? A displacement would have at a minimum 9 subsequent displacements to other pilots. All the other issues would be covered by the CHRC final report, I suspect.
This complaint has not yet had a final outcome other that re-instatement and you well know they should not displace a pilot from their position. The Embraer F/O is only position with vancancies. From what I have been told the CHRC Chairman has a good grasp of the issue of re-instatement and the harm to others by displacement. So they will be the highest paid EMB pilots in the Company! Certainly more than any of the Captains.
They are seeking a return to flying, Yes or No? A displacement would have at a minimum 9 subsequent displacements to other pilots. All the other issues would be covered by the CHRC final report, I suspect.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote giving every airline pilot over 60 a free ticket into the sun.
They'll enjoy taking turns showing off their skills, and if one of them seriously isn't competent enough to aim at the sun, at least they're not here anymore!
They'll enjoy taking turns showing off their skills, and if one of them seriously isn't competent enough to aim at the sun, at least they're not here anymore!
This agreement ACPA has with the company proves they still operate under the mistaken opinion that they are not discriminating against anybody and that they are in control of events. Neither are true. Aside from wanting another trip to the CHRT, they are absolutely begging for a DFR complaint.
ACPA continues to dig themselves deeper with their refusal to accept reality and deal with it responsibly, and the company is only too happy to provide the shovel.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....dig themselves deeper with their refusal to accept reality and deal with it responsibly, and the company is only too happy to provide the shovel."
The highly obvious bigee you have to ask, with all this digging, and nonstop documented discrimination going on, is when does the 'shovel' dig far enough to clink into the HRC Section 59 and 60 criminal code provisions that are clearly designed to back up individuals' Parliamentary rights. What are the repercussions.
Pilots returning to the line from GDIP face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Layoff face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Leaves of Absence face no such sanctions. A ton of questions.
The highly obvious bigee you have to ask, with all this digging, and nonstop documented discrimination going on, is when does the 'shovel' dig far enough to clink into the HRC Section 59 and 60 criminal code provisions that are clearly designed to back up individuals' Parliamentary rights. What are the repercussions.
Pilots returning to the line from GDIP face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Layoff face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Leaves of Absence face no such sanctions. A ton of questions.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:08.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Late Great Planet Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age 60 Retirement
Tail Dragger 2004 wrote: "Yes I retired with 25,000hrs plus at 60. I sincerely miss those days but it was time to hang it up. Many young kids now who are trying to get a flying job don't have the opportunities we had. Eight companies in a career was enough. Lets give them a break and wish them success. To give back to aviation what we received would be to let the young eagles soar. To continue flying commercially at the end of ones career, is leaving a young pilot on the bread line......."
TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!
TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Tail Dragger 2004 wrote: "Yes I retired with 25,000hrs plus at 60. I sincerely miss those days but it was time to hang it up. Many young kids now who are trying to get a flying job don't have the opportunities we had. Eight companies in a career was enough. Lets give them a break and wish them success. To give back to aviation what we received would be to let the young eagles soar. To continue flying commercially at the end of ones career, is leaving a young pilot on the bread line......."
TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!"
Everybody is entitled to fly and to be gainfully employed, regardless of age.
TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!"
Everybody is entitled to fly and to be gainfully employed, regardless of age.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:08.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North America
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A better name for this poster would be " Midget I.Q. "
Our working force is aging quite rapidly, like Japan. By the time I hit 60, my tax dollars will be supporting 7 dependents. Not logical.
And you know what? As much as I love money, like I said on the first page of this thread, I will hand in my license when I hit 60; been there done that, no need to fly til I die, at least not jets.
Sometimes when people die, their friends say "at least they died doing what they love". You don't die in a plane crash. That isn't the way for a pilot to go, ever.
I was at Pitt Meadows when a ~70 yr old crashed his multi, and instead of TC taking away his license, just gave it back to him, and he ended up in a building in Richmond.
TC saved their ass by saying that first crash was due to a 'landing gear malfunction' which of course I knew was bull**** because the only reason why his landing gear malfunctioned was because it wasn't there since he clipped the fence.
They didn't want to be blamed because they gave someone his license back when his skill level was lacking. Every pilot slips, more so as they age.
If pilots don't retire when they're 60, newbies will be stuck with no where to climb for a good 10 extra years, and when we finally run out of money to support the dependents of our country, we'll collapse. Sending stubborn people to the sun is perfectly fine, saves our economy, saves our future, fixes our already messed up aviation industry. Now, unless you see pilot pay increasing substantially in the next few years where waiting an extra 10 years for a promotion won't affect their overall pay and increase of inflation over those years, then sure, let these 60 yr olds fly til they're 200. But you and I both know the pay isn't going to ever be what the current 50+ yr old pilots are making.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MidgetBoy:
Your argument might have made sense to the legislators 30-some years ago when the proposed human rights law was initially debated, but if you read the beginning pages of this thread, you will see that that argument is totally irrelevant today.
The primary issue here is the legal validity of a collective agreement provision in the context of human rights legislation, not the merits of the agreement itself on any other grounds, including safety. A secondary issue is how to deal with the implications arising from the first issue.
Wrong fight, sir.
Your argument might have made sense to the legislators 30-some years ago when the proposed human rights law was initially debated, but if you read the beginning pages of this thread, you will see that that argument is totally irrelevant today.
The primary issue here is the legal validity of a collective agreement provision in the context of human rights legislation, not the merits of the agreement itself on any other grounds, including safety. A secondary issue is how to deal with the implications arising from the first issue.
Wrong fight, sir.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More like I'm thinking of this for the sake of the economy.
Our working force is aging quite rapidly, like Japan. By the time I hit 60, my tax dollars will be supporting 7 dependents. Not logical.
Our working force is aging quite rapidly, like Japan. By the time I hit 60, my tax dollars will be supporting 7 dependents. Not logical.
You have the right argument, you just applied it incorrectly.
Your desire to stop flying jets at 60 is your business and your decision, but it applies to no one but you.
Last edited by engfireleft; 25th Jul 2010 at 12:39.